About Me

Staten Island, New York, United States
I've worked in the FDNY for the past 29 years. I've written freelance commentary for the past twenty years and have one book published "Looking Up (A Working View)," Quiet Storm Publishers. For those of you with whom my ideas resonate, we probably share a common love of Liberty. If you like anything you read here, feel free to reuse...just please add my appellation. Life's been more than fair to me and this is a part of my humble offering back. If you have any corrections, or additions, please email me (my email address is in my profile) and I’ll both appreciate and consider them all and do my best to get back to you with my thoughts on it. My ideas are always evolving and I’m open to persuasion in all areas. I thank all those who've taken some of their time to read here.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

I know some of folks will say that the Super-moderate O’Reilly (against Capital punishment and more environmentalist than most Dems) takes credit for everything, but here he may well have a point.

After outlining his argument that no Presidential candidate would have, say David Dukes (who recently surfaced in both the Ukraine and Iran to deny the holocaust ever occurred) write for them, then how come there is so much less outrage when two self-avowed anti-Christian fanatics (McEwan & Marcotte) are hired by a mainstream Presidential candidate?

On the hypocrisy of outrage O’Reilly is certainly right, of course, McEwan and Marcotte are exactly the same as David Dukes, though I really don’t understand why either’s views should be verboten. I would certainly NOT dismiss a candidate who embraced David Dukes, even though I disagree with many of Dukes’ views. I probably wouldn’t vote for that candidate, but I respect their right to endorse and be endorsed by whom they wish to be associated. Same with Marcotte and McEwan, I don’t “blame” the Edwards campaign for their views, BUT I still associate that campaign with these two, so I associate that campaign with a vuirulent form of bigotry – anti-Christian bigotry.

At any rate, back to O’Reilly and the Edwards camp, it seems O’Reilly found out that William Donahue of the Catholic League had informed the Edwards campaign that Marcotte had written a post describing, in pornographic detail, “Mary, the mother of Jesus, having sex with the Lord.”

The Catholic League reported that John Edwards’ response was that while he disagreed with Marcotte’s words, he wouldn’t fire either Marcotte or McEwan.

O’Reilly claims he had a producer call the Edwards camp, but no one there would talk to them about the issue, so Bill O’Reilly went on TV and laid out the entire above scenario. As he notes, “Within minutes of the broadcast, the Edwards campaign got rid of Marcotte. McEwan left the next day.”Indeed O’Reilly’s right about the timing of Amanda Marcotte’s being let go by the Edwards campaign, so could it be that Bill O’Reilly, and not Marcotte’s insanely poor judgment on the Duke case, in a post subsequently “sanitized” and radically changed, was the reason Marcotte was let go?

Could be.

At least the timing’s so right, that it certainly makes it hard to argue with O’Reilly’s claim of credit.

In fact, that same week, O’Reilly asked Jane Fleming, the executive director of the Young Democrats Association, the same question, on air, that he posed to the Edwards campaign off air, “Would you hire a person who’d said vile things about blacks.”“No,” she answered tersely.

“So why is OK to hire someone who says vile things about Christians?”

Fleming had no answer and appeared flummoxed by the question the Edwards campaign wisely avoided.

But avoiding the question doesn’t avoid the issue!

For better or worse, John Edwards hired and willingly associated his campaign with two radical anti-Christian zealots. Amanda Marcotte is on the same level as a Ted Rall or a David Dukes – outright bigots who are proud of their bigotry.

As I said, no bigotry should be out of bounds, speech is free, the results (alienation, loss of support, loss of market-share for businesses, etc) are not. Speech comes with concomitant responsibilities and the speaker must bear the brunt of the effects of that speech.

Tim Hardaway, an NBA stalwart from 1989 to 2003, recently acknowledged that “...I hate gays. If there were a gay guy on my team, I’d do my best to distance myself from him...”The NBA disavowed those remarks and asked Hardaway to leave Las Vegas where he was representing the NBA during All-Star weekend. Hardaway was free to voice those views, but they had consequences.

In response the always outspoken Charles Barkley said, “Timmy’s a good guy, but those remarks are just stupid...I’ve played with gay teammates and that never bothered me. You know bothers me? You not being able to play ball!...You know what else bothers me? People feeling they have to announce their sexuality, like, “Hay, I’m gay.” Who cares?!”Just as Hardaway’s remarks are protected from government action by the 1st Amendment, they are NOT free from repercussions by employers.

Same with people like Amanda Marcotte, David Dukes and other extremists – their views are protected from government censure, but they are NOT free from ramifications with employers, or an unreceptive public. You have to be able to bear the impact of whatever speech you endorse. Just as David Dukes is alienated and ostracized for his views in America, the likes of Amanda Marcotte deserve the same condemnation...and those who endorse/hire her deserve to be held accountable for that faux pas.